Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Of course he was

We don't know for sure that he did-----------as we have seen elsewhere, Mr Oswald's words were twisted outrageously in the interrogation reports.

However, IF he did deny it, there's a simple explanation: he knows he stands accused of supplying the rifle, he knows he's been set up, and he understandably does not wish to admit to having brought ANY large package to work that morning.

He may even have checked shortly after the assassination for his curtain rods (in one of the first floor storage rooms perhaps?) and found them gone. At which point he will have put 2 and 2 together. In which case.... now, in interrogation, there is no point in confirming what Mr Frazier is saying about the curtain rods: they are not where he left them, so confirming them only makes him look worse.

This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense.  It is laughable.

[Richard Smith]

"There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/22/20)

"So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.  I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know."
(Mr Richard Smith, 12/24/20)

I guess Mr Smith's attitude to the NY Times is most charitably described as ... confused! 

Huh?  You are losing it.  Send your "evidence" to them or admit you are fraud who doesn't really believe that it proves a conspiracy.

[Walt Cakebread]

This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense.  It is laughable.

A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty. You cannot honestly believe that nonsense. 

Geeez!....Watta revoltin development this is ! ( As William Bendix used to say )  Here I am finding myself in agreement with "Richard Smith"

[Alan Ford]

This gets better and better.  A guy carries curtain rods to work.  He tells his coworker who could corroborate him.  Instead of shouting it from the roof tops and yelling to the press that this is what he had and instructing them on where to find them to exonerate him, he instead lies about it!  Making him appear guilty.

You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times?

[Richard Smith]

You missed the last part of what I wrote, Mr Smith--------maybe you were half-focused on reading my post and half-focused on reading your favorite newspaper, the NY Times?

You are still here?  What do you expect to happen?  You have posted this same form about a thousand times here.  We have had the same discussions many times over.  Move on to the NY Times or any other media outlet that you choose if you believe it proves a conspiracy.  Then get back to us with the results.  Good luck!

[Martin Weidmann]

You are still here?  What do you expect to happen?  You have posted this same form about a thousand times here.  We have had the same discussions many times over.  Move on to the NY Times or any other media outlet that you choose if you believe it proves a conspiracy.  Then get back to us with the results.  Good luck!

Still running from the discussion with your pathethic "tell it to the NY Times" BS, I see

Now why am I not surprised, contrarian?

[Richard Smith]

Still running from the discussion with your pathethic "tell it to the NY Times" BS, I see

Now why am I not surprised, contrarian?

Alan has posted this same form hundreds of times and asked the same question over and over.  I've provided a possible explanation.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.   No one else has chimed in.  What do you expect to happen now?  What is to be gained from just restating the same points over and over?  If he truly believes that he has "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to kill the president of the United States, he should take that evidence to the media or authorities in Texas.  Isn't that what a normal person would do if they actually thought that this form proved a conspiracy?

[Alan Ford]

Alan has posted this same form hundreds of times and asked the same question over and over.  I've provided a possible explanation.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.   No one else has chimed in.  What do you expect to happen now?  What is to be gained from just restating the same points over and over?  If he truly believes that he has "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to kill the president of the United States, he should take that evidence to the media or authorities in Texas.  Isn't that what a normal person would do if they actually thought that this form proved a conspiracy?

Let us know when you come up with a non-risible explanation for the document, Mr Smith!